Local Developer Heads Back To The Design Review Board

It's back to the City's Design Review Board for Developer Ron Patterson, as his appeal to the Sheridan City Council was unanimously denied. Patterson was appealing recent decisions by the Design and Review Board of the City Planning Commission that halted construction on the Double Eagle Tech Park building at Double Eagle Drive and East Ridge Road.

Councilor Steve Brantz says that Patterson will now have to head back to the Design Review Board next month.

Patterson's request to continue construction on the building was denied by the Planning Commission last week after he made no attempt to change the roof line to meet City Junction Corridor regulations.

Patterson will go before the Design Review Board for the 4th time on Wednesday, December 2nd.

Carrol Realty
view counter

What is really

What is really interesting,is nobody even mentioned the fact that patterson is in violation of the building permit.In that he had no permission to do anything but concrete work and yet took it upon himself to violate the permit and frame the building.What about some action on this blatant violation of code,after all it was one of the reasons originally stated for issuing a stop work order on the building.Which according to staff happens to be the second building in double eagle that's had code violations recently.

I applaud Alex Lee and Pearson for having the backbone to stand up to this developer.As Lee stated during the council meeting.Patterson has had close to a dozen meetings already with DRB and Planning and still chooses to be in violation.

What's the 4pm meeting on the 19th going to be.Does patterson finally get his way now that Kinskey and his recently appointed city councilman/realty broker Heath are involved,in yet another "special" meeting with patterson.Of which Planning has already stated they weren't interested in having again since it's done nothing towards patterson actually following code.

FYI - Special meeting scheduled for Thursday

Mr. Richter (& Media):

FYI- There is going to be a special meeting/workshop of the Planning Commission, Planning Dept., and DRB on Thursday, November 19th @ 4:00 in the City Council meeting room- to discuss the Entryway Corridors and DRB. Thought you may wish to attend to gather more information concerning some of the underlying issues at hand.

Thank you

Just for conversation.

According to the wyoming business council and the city of sheridan,the $1.5 million grant that Forward Sheridan and the city had applied for through the Wyoming Business Council was Withdrawn last week.

So where does that leave Ron Patterson and his building? Forward Sheridan won't be using the building without grant money to pay for it.

Will the city still take ownership of the building for 5 years and use tax dollars to pay for it now that the grant is out of the picture?

Maybe Dana Barton can weigh in on this for us.

Clarification to Mr. Richter

Dear Mr. Richter-

I would like to clarify that I was not attacking you or casting any blame for the comment that you made. I totally understand that you are only taking information and sharing it. My point was to draw attention to the ongoing "statements" that are being made and unfortunately, this is the only (one sided) media that is being shared. It's frustrating to me and as a group to see the lopsideness but is no reflection on you or the media group as a whole. I apologize if you took this personally in any way.

Dana

Thanks for the clarification

Thank you for the clarification, I thought that you were implying that I was the one making the inflammatory statement regarding Mr. Patterson, when in fact I was just reporting on what was said at the last few meetings. Once again, thanks for clearing it up and hopefully there can be some kind of resolution to this situation that will make both sides happy.

Inflammatory statements need to be addressed

11.17.09
Dr. Mr. Richter: I wish to address a comment that is being made very freely and also stated via Sheridan Media and through the Press. In regards to the City Council meeting last night, I once again was very disturbed by a comment that I addressed publicly in a letter to Ms. Pearson (after the Planning Commission meeting last week). She said that Mr. Patterson “refuses to modulate the roofline” and that he “doesn’t seem to get it” (in regards to the Double Eagle Tech Park Lot 6 building). I attempted to watch the City Council meeting last night with an open mind and a truly objective manner. Amongst other disturbing issues at hand I found the most aggravation when Mr. Lee addressed the City Council members and aggressively made it a point to state that Mr. Patterson refuses to work with the City on this project therefore hoping to subject him to “start all over”. And, now to address your statement that Mr. Patterson “has made no attempt to change the roof line to meet City Junction Corridor regulations” clearly proves that this entire project has been overshadowed by blatantly incorrect statements and now has been given a black ball position with the City and a dark shadow on the project. Once again, may I reiterate that I have personally been assisting on all facets of this project and sat through several meetings that have wholeheartedly been addressed with a “work with” attitude by Mr. Patterson and his construction workforce, represented by Travis Weaver. If you would like another insight viewpoint and opinion that supports my statements I encourage you to contact Mr. Weaver. I’m positive he would be most happy to endorse my viewpoint and of Mr. Patterson’s ongoing and numerous attempts to satisfy the various requests of the DRB.

Unfortunately, I believe it has become a transparent mission for a couple/few members of the various boards to stifle Mr. Patterson’s development operations. I personally believe that any board member that has been selected to support the City must be required to remain objective without personal feelings overriding what is right and wrong. This project has become strenuous and it is clear that written codes, ordinances and regulations are now open and left to interpretation. In the past few meetings there have been several comments made in regards to “not going by the book but what we feel it should mean &/or what we’d like to see”….kind of statements. How has this GRAY area become the defining terms of the matter when the terms were written to be black and white? Obviously, there is always room to fine tune areas that are unclear. Not only does this become extremely complex for the developer but must draw a question in board member’s minds when being asked to decide what color to pick when taking a position or determining outcomes.

This letter is not intended to stir the pot but moreso to make it crystal clear that Mr. Patterson has been most eager to satisfy the recommendations and requirements of the DRB and Planning Commission. I believe it would be only fair to give credit where credit is due and to squelch erroneous and inflammatory statements to the media.

[Some Content Removed by Sheridan Media]

Addressing the "Inflammatory Statements"

The statement I made in the story is not one that has been made up by me, as there have been numerous Planning Commission members and Design Review members who have stated exactly what was reported in the story. It has been stated in several public meetings that Mr. Patterson refused to make changes to the roof line, changes that were recommended to him by the Design Review Board. I simply said in the story that he's been denied because he has refused to make the changes that were recommended to him. I have nothing against Mr. Patterson, I'm just reporting what members of the DRB and Planning Commission have said repeatedly in open public meetings.

Design review board is out of line

I don't understand this situation a bit. The Design Review Board gave permits and permission to Patterson for a foundation, but shuts him down when the developer begins actual building. That is the next logical step. The builder is trying to beat the weather. That also is logical. The Design Board is out of line here. It appears they are throwing their power and weight around because they can. This is very troubling.

I agree

I agree with Nedhead - the Design Review Board is out of line. The rules are so complicated that the people that are meant to be enforcing them don't understand what they mean. When you talk to some people who have had large building projects they will tell you the city is almost impossible to work with and are constantly changing their minds on what should and should not be permitted.